you are in over your head if you think replacing a currency with a different currency pegged to the value of labor is communist. Socialist, maybe, communist, not even a little.

This document is very dated and fairly simplistic but it's a good 101 basis for what we believe. Just so we're speaking eye to eye, go read this (it's very short and light reading, don't worry), then come back, and use this definition of communism. It's the definition that communists actually use and it'll do you well to know your enemy before you pick fights with them.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm jk the Manifesto is more relevant here, a little less short and substantially more dense but if you're gonna argue with Marxists about Marxism you should probably read the 23 page pamphlet that Marx is actually famous for https://www.marxists.org/admin/books/manifesto/Manifesto.pdf

[–] Candelestine@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I would argue that the attempt to abolish money and replace it with a measure of value that was neither arbitrary nor pegged to a commodity like gold was very much a move to liberate the proletariat.

I picked it because the abolition of money has a great deal of symbolic value, that's all. We could use them getting rid of factory owners and seizing industry instead if you wish.

[–] purahna@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's still money. It's just pegged to something besides a bar of gold.

[–] Candelestine@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Yeah, true. A step in that direction perhaps, but not the actual result yet. Alright, fair point.